JaKiri

E=mc^2 (or rather it's fuller equation, which I shall not bother to post again) is NOT part of General Relativity (The part of relativity which disagrees with QM). It is part of SPECIAL relativity, and The Standard Model of Quantum Physics assumes that SPECIAL relativity is valid. Your post is complete garbage. See the other thread for another reply on this topic.

The standard model of Quantum Physics does not and CANNOT describe accurately gravitational interactions on a macroscale. There is a reason that General Relativity is still being taught as scientific fact, despite the fact that it disagrees with the Standard model, which is scientific fact. That reason is that it IS scientific fact, as we have no better theories. There is a reason that the standard model is being taught as scientific fact, despite disagreeing with GR, which is scientific fact. GUESS THE NEXT LINE PEOPLE!

A photon is its own antiparticle, and can be destroyed.

Mathematical proof please.

Having understood absolutely none of that post, I must resort to the tried and tested Whut?

The problem is it being misdiagnosed, like autism often is.

You've got a misunderstanding of Occam's Razor there. Just because it's complicated doesn't mean it should be rejected, as it doesn't unnecessarily multiply entities.

Was this place using vB before?

Empirically, it's the same, as they're only emitted because of the hole's presence.

He could hold his drink well, though.

Nope.

The point about energy conservation and the like is that it's a transference, the rate of which may be calculated. It's not about 'running down', as it depends on the surroundings as well. And running down suggests that the energy is destroyed. The second law of thermodynamics is a dodgy reference, as it is those waste energies that he failed to mention that are it's cause.

If we're talking about reflecting that which comes near it, see Excession by Iain M Banks.

As to the first paragraph, it's not an axiom. It's called the thermodynamic arrow of time, and there has been much discussion. As to the rest, Whut?

If we're going the whole hog, then only things that you perceive exist, but by Occam's Razor, this isn't the case. Events are independent of how you observe them.

We should! And I like my above post, I must have been feeling philosophical that night.

It produces CO because when there is insufficient oxygen to make CO2, it makes CO instead.

You know, MPs.

Oh dear. Oh dear. You should never touch a naughty. You know what happens if you touch a naughty? You catch NAUGHTYPOX. And that's not very nice, I can tell ye!

I don't like arguing about paradoxes, because they always turn out to be invalid, and thus don't really constitute an argument.

Not really, that's not a 'hole' as such, it's just a big ball of hydrogen and company*. *There's a sitcom in that.

In 2D there are 2 orthoganal (at 90 degrees) axes, in 3D there are 3, and in 4D there are four. That's all there is to it. eg. A Hypercube, (4D cube), has cubes as faces much in the same way that a cube has squares, and a square has lines. As to mapping them, all you need is 4 coordinates. (2,3,4,1) is a 4d cartesian coordinate.

Everyone doesn't vote for everything. It's a democracy with proportional representation.

So what you're saying is Disks become fragmented because they use NTFS. Right. ps. The UI is very good in XP, I find. And if I want to run unix applications I'll use RedHat, ta.

Mice were never into the drugs scene, cheese always did the trick.